Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-10-16
16:26:33 alaski yeah
16:26:53 alaski I know that freeing up the quota has come up a few times, and there's no strong argument for not doing it
16:27:20 alaski the thing to figure out is how to properly tell the user that they can't unshelve something if they've subsequently filled up their quota
16:27:57 mriedem 409 overquota on unshelve
16:28:05 mriedem we'd do a count during unshelve and fail if there is no room
16:28:13 mriedem similar to resize up to a larger flavor i'd tihnk
16:28:38 mriedem but, os-simple-tenant-usage doesn't check quota usage at all... :)
16:28:50 mriedem sort of redundant in that way
16:30:26 openstackgerrit Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: Optional separate database for placement API https://review.openstack.org/362766
16:31:42 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Remove dead parameter from '_create_domain_and_network' https://review.openstack.org/512352
16:34:25 alaski I'll just apologize again for introducing shelve :) it's an interesting idea, but it really messes with the model of how things work
16:35:06 mriedem heh
16:35:07 mriedem oh laski
16:36:13 mriedem alaski: this came up today b/c someone reported a bug where they created an instance in a specific AZ, shelve offloaded, then on unshelve the AZ was gone so they get a NoValidHost
16:36:22 mriedem so that started a discussion on what we should do about fixing it, if anything
16:37:10 mriedem which reminds me, if you created your server with personality files and shelved it, those files are gone on unshelve
16:37:17 mriedem another reason to deprecate personality files https://review.openstack.org/#/c/509013/
16:37:23 mriedem any other specs cores around want to +W ^ ?
16:38:45 alaski My first inclination is to say that when that AZ was removed whoever was doing it probably didn't realize that there were shelved instances there, and maybe that needs to be exposed better.
16:39:10 mriedem yeah that was one option - sylvain has a spec to not allow renaming or deleting AZs while there are instances tied to them
16:39:50 alaski that would probably affect resize as well
16:41:41 alaski I could also see an argument for being able to provide scheduling hints on any API requests that can cause an instance move. Though that's a fair amount of complexity to introeduce
16:41:59 mriedem that was another option that came up
16:42:12 mriedem and i'm on the fence about adding more functionality to the unshelve API if we kind of want to kill it long-term
16:43:35 alaski that's my favorite option, kill it, but I always felt like it was too entrenched for that
16:43:44 mriedem we actually have no idea
16:43:48 mriedem as to it's usage in the wild
16:43:52 mriedem that's the frustrating part
16:44:39 alaski yeah. I always wanted to think it wasn't really used. But at every summit a few people would mention it and want to make it better because they used it
16:45:02 mriedem there were those one guys that wanted to make it super fast somehow
16:45:38 mriedem like, enterprise fast
16:45:51 mriedem shelve at the speed of business
16:45:57 alaski haha
16:46:12 alaski you need a (tm) there
16:46:27 mriedem nova: shelving at the speed of business (tm)
16:46:35 mriedem needs a t-shirt
16:50:24 alaski I would wear that
16:52:00 mriedem alaski: here you go https://www.customink.com/designs/novashelve/scj0-00b6-zdmw/share?pc=EMAIL-40778&utm_campaign=shared%20design&utm_source=share%20link&utm_medium=shared%20design&utm_content=shared%20desktop
16:52:25 mriedem dansmith: ^ place orders now
16:52:30 mriedem supplies are limited
16:53:13 alaski minimum order of 6
16:53:18 mriedem i can change the color
16:53:19 mriedem sec
16:54:59 mriedem https://www.customink.com/designs/novashelve/scj0-00b6-zdmw/share?pc=EMAIL-40778&utm_campaign=shared%20design&utm_source=share%20link&utm_medium=shared%20design&utm_content=shared%20desktop
16:55:21 mriedem $33?!
16:55:37 mriedem i'm not sure the joke is worth that much
16:56:24 alaski not quite
16:56:35 mriedem i'm also pretty sure the foundation people would not allow the usage of the logo on a shirt that makes fun of nova
16:58:31 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Handle InstanceNotFound when setting password via metadata https://review.openstack.org/472933
16:59:38 openstackgerrit Matthew Booth proposed openstack/nova master: Remove reboot argument to _create_domain_and_network https://review.openstack.org/512363
17:03:29 dansmith mriedem: lol
17:07:30 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: Service user token requested with no auth https://review.openstack.org/512329
17:07:42 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make migration uuid hold allocations for migrating instances https://review.openstack.org/506420
17:07:43 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Make live migration hold resources with a migration allocation https://review.openstack.org/507638
17:08:13 dtantsur folks, could you please put spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/449155/ on your review radar?
17:08:25 dtantsur this should be contained in the ironic driver, and may end up a big win for us
17:08:27 dtantsur thanks!
17:09:23 dtantsur mriedem: ^^
17:29:04 ralonsoh dansmith: hi, about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/449257/42/nova/objects/instance_pci_requests.py.
17:29:40 ralonsoh dansmith: I modified the obj_make_compatible function to handle this. I don't know why I can't change the type of this field
17:30:59 dansmith ralonsoh: because an older node sending one of these to a newer node won't trigger a backport operation (since the version says it should be compatible), but it won't deserialize it with the right field type
17:31:18 dansmith ralonsoh: let me pull your patch down and make a change to show you, just a sec
17:31:36 ralonsoh dansmith: for sure, and thanks!
17:38:57 abhi89 dansmith, melwitt, sdague: please review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/505546/ .. its been pending since a long time now..
17:40:51 dansmith ralonsoh: here's a test: https://pastebin.com/LapK0Rnz
17:41:00 dansmith ralonsoh: which gives you this: https://pastebin.com/cXTH5P2i
17:41:09 dansmith ralonsoh: revert your field change and run that and you'll see it passes
17:43:03 ralonsoh dansmith: but in the test, nova_object.version should be 1.1 if sent by an old node
17:43:22 ralonsoh dansmith: shouldn't it?
17:44:19 dansmith ralonsoh: it won't matter :)
18:01:58 mriedem dansmith: want to send this ocata change in? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/482219/ - that's holding up a newton change
18:02:14 dansmith "want" is a little strong
18:02:37 mriedem if you could find it in your heart
18:09:26 mriedem artom: hmm, tonyb raised a concern in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471356/ about whether or not VIR_DOMAIN_BLOCK_REBASE_COPY_DEV would be in the libvirt version we support in newton
18:09:34 mriedem it looks like VIR_DOMAIN_BLOCK_REBASE_COPY_DEV was added in 1.2.9
18:09:46 mriedem and min supported version of libvirt in newton (and ocata) is 1.2.1
18:10:11 cdent dansmith, mriedem, edleafe: in discussion on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/510625/ it was agreed that the GET /allocations/{consumer_uuid} rep should include project_id and user_id since PUT will require it. In your opinions should GET /resource_providers/{uuid}/allocations as well? I think not because the layout is much different (because the cardinality of the output) (see
18:10:11 cdent https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/placement/#resource-provider-allocations )
18:15:54 dansmith cdent: I dunno, if there's not a need for it currently I wouldn't personally spend time on it
18:16:12 dansmith ideally I would think it would be best to have that information in each allocation, but..
18:17:07 mriedem cdent: on GET /resource_providers/{uuid}/allocations you'd have to put project_id and user_id within each consumer-uuid keyed dict entry right?
18:17:17 mriedem i don't think we care about that,
18:17:41 mriedem if you really needed to take the result of GET /resource_providers/{uuid}/allocations and figure out the project/user for one of those allocation cosumers, you could turn around and call GET /allocations/{consumer_uuid} yeah?
18:17:44 cdent right, it would be weird
18:17:48 cdent yes
18:18:01 cdent cool, this is the answer I was hoping for
18:18:24 mriedem artom: so i think we probably need to either revert https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471353/ or put a fix on top
18:18:34 mriedem to not try and use VIR_DOMAIN_BLOCK_REBASE_COPY_DEV if it's not available
18:18:40 dansmith I can see uses for it it but like I say, I don't think there's anything begging for it right now
18:18:44 cdent for the consumer side I had to take jay’s only one join query recent cleanup and add four more to get the project and user inf
18:23:12 melwitt mriedem: yeah, nothing is calling InstanceList.get_count_by_vm_state. it was intended to be used for limiting the number of pending resizes but once we got to it, we decided not to change the existing quota behavior for resizes
18:33:39 efried alex_xu I reread https://review.openstack.org/#/c/497713/ with fresh eyes and commented.
18:37:18 efried alex_xu dansmith cdent edleafe mriedem Pursuant to this morning's discussion about traits-on-shared-with-nested, we should figure out whether there's a way to take aggregates out of the picture until ^ is figured out.
18:41:10 cdent efried: how far out of the picture do you want them to go?
18:41:56 efried cdent Well, the logic in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/479766/ is trying to handle hitting shared RPs with the results.
18:42:35 efried cdent And the logic it's using is at the very least implementing an arbitrary and undiscussed design point.
18:43:57 efried cdent Which is: When you ask for traits X, Y, and Z, I can give you back an allocation request (i.e. one hit in the list of GET /allocation_candidates) that has traits X and Y in the compute host RP but trait Z in a shared RP in the same aggregate as the compute host RP.
18:45:26 cdent presumably that shared RP is also satisfying some inventory requirement, not _just_ a trait?
18:45:28 efried This is going to break down as soon as we have any scenario more complicated than traits X, Y, and Z being mutually exclusive on the compute host and shared RP.
18:45:44 artom mriedem, ah crap

Earlier   Later